For Nike, it couldn’t have gone much better. All advertising is valuable, and it’s even better when it’s free. All eyes are on their new England kit and it’s only been on the shelves for a few days.
For the football association, it is a little more complicated. A gimmick, no doubt put forward by a blue-sky thinking executive from Nike’s headquarters on the US West Coast, has reversed the kind of own goal Gareth Southgate and his players will be hoping to avoid when they come to Germany for the European Championships in three months. time. As the tournament goes, this one has gotten off to a pretty rocky start.
We know what tournament football kits are. They are a means of making money. See the old set. Adjust it. Fiddling with it. Put a new price tag on it. Sell it. On to the next one. It’s a rather cold, calculated exercise dressed up in the emotion and excess that always accompanies a summer tournament.
The big sportswear manufacturers and national associations with whom they have their huge contracts take us all for fools and, on the whole, we are happy to play along.
This time, however, the FA have allowed themselves to be pulled out of step with a section of their public. Whether you’re fundamentally offended by Nike’s decision to bastardize St. George cross on the collar of England’s tournament kit (I’m not particular) or whether you have better things to think about, it’s hard to look at this development and not ask yourself why on earth they even took the risk.
Nike’s decision to replace the horizontal line of the traditional red cross on the back of England’s Euro 2024 shirt with a navy blue, light blue and pink has caused controversy
But it has been a brilliant scenario for Nike, with the public’s attention focused on their shirts
England captain Harry Kane models the new shirt, which went on sale to fans on Monday
Your browser does not support iframes.
The explanation – wrapped in marketingspeak and jargon – is arguably as bleak as the action itself.
‘A playful update of St. George’s flag…to unite and inspire’ is how it has been presented on the brochure that came with the launch of the kit.
It has subsequently been explained that the pink and two shades of blue that make up the vertical thread of the cross are there as a nod to the training kit worn by Sir Alf Ramsey and his players during the 1966 World Cup.
Take a look at the beautiful old photographs of Sir Alf and his players from 58 years ago and you will quickly realize that it makes no sense at all. The training suits are blue with red and white trim. Red, white and blue. We may have seen it on another flag that we all know.
On Thursday, the FA stood resolutely behind their decision and understandably so. There is nothing they can do about it now.
Southgate will doubtless not appreciate the noise that will now accompany tomorrow’s friendly against Brazil at Wembley. The England manager is holding a pre-match press conference tonight at the team’s base in north London and can now expect to spend much of it talking about things other than football.
We all know what tournament football kits are all about. They are simply a means of making money
But how dare the FA let Nike mess with our flag. They should have said no to the kit designer
One of Southgate’s key achievements during his year in charge of the team has been to reconnect the England players with the public. The results have certainly oiled the wheels in that process, but it has been about more than that. To some degree England supporters now feel they have a team they like and relate to. This summer in Germany, these players will now wear a shirt emblazoned with a flag that looks different from all the ones hanging from the stands in Gelsenkirchen, Cologne and Frankfurt. Again, it’s hard to see much logic in that.
Former FA chief executive Adrian Bevington spoke eloquently on talkSPORT yesterday how the kit manufacturers often seem to push the boundaries at this time of year. “There’s always a problem with the launch of the kit,” Bevington said.
Two different worlds collide during the process, for sure. Nike’s commercial instincts are pushing against the priorities of a 160-year-old sporting body that is supposed to have the best interests of every footballer, supporter and administrator at heart. It is not difficult to imagine the conflict.
In the end, however, it is the FA’s team, the FA’s kit, the FA’s responsibility. There was always an option to say ‘No’ while sitting right there on the table.
Nike, for their part, have been here before with England. It was only last year that they decided not to produce a replica goalkeeper shirt ahead of England’s participation in the Women’s World Cup. They simply didn’t think it would make them any money.
So we have long known which side of the equation they sit on. This is the site that tells them it’s okay to price the ‘Dri Fit Advantage’ (no, me neither) version of the new England shirt at £124.99 for adults and £119.99 for kids . Shorts (£33) and socks (£18) are extra. This is the side that makes them think it’s fine to charge an extra £18 for a name and number to be stuck on the back.
None of that surprises us. It has been like that for a long time. We might have expected some smarter thinking from the FA, though. In short, messing around with things that don’t actually belong to you is never the best idea.
A gimmick no doubt suggested by an executive from Nike’s headquarters on the US West Coast has turned the kind of own goal Gareth Southgate and his players would have wanted to avoid.
Nike has had kit controversies in the past, most notably with Mary Earps at the World Cup last year
And with that in mind, what is a ‘play update’ to a flag anyway? Isn’t a flag just a flag?
Would Nike have tried this with the American Stars and Stripes? Fewer stars perhaps? Maybe just lose Alaska and Texas.
More pertinently, would they have taken a brush with their own special ‘swoosh’ that is at the center of everything they do and sell?
It seems unlikely that they would mess with their own heritage symbol and downright strange that they have been allowed to interfere with one of ours.